Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Pretty much everything in Genesis is inconsistent with what we know about the origin and evolution of our Universe leading our Solar System and our planet, and then to Life as we know it. You can twist individual statements to vaguely match some aspects of known cosmology, but it requires quite a stretch to get anything convincing, let alone 'prove' the writer(s) knew anything about the nature and origin of our own planet, let alone any greater reality.

The funniest thing about his claim is that Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't work much better than Newton's theory of gravity, and that quantum mechanics came to be to try and fill in the missing equations. He literally proves he doesn't know anything about relativity or quantum mechanics in his post.

What did you expect from an idiot?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Pretty much everything in Genesis is inconsistent with what we know about the origin and evolution of our Universe leading our Solar System and our planet, and then to Life as we know it. You can twist individual statements to vaguely match some aspects of known cosmology, but it requires quite a stretch to get anything convincing, let alone 'prove' the writer(s) knew anything about the nature and origin of our own planet, let alone any greater reality.

What our comic book friend here does NOT understand is that he is not the first person to try to fit the square peg into the round hole, nor is he the only religion to attempt it. It always amuses me when people pull this crap thinking it will impress us.

Any time anyone of any sect of any religion tries this they are pulling the same old stupid gap argument from ignorance, all labels aside.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Your statement is absurd. Science is impossible to perform Without causality principles. You cannot break the laws of physics in the Natural world . Now if you are speaking of the unnatural world, A world not governed by physics then yes it is Possible. But this unnatural world is what the bible calls, The Spiritual world. Science is natural .

Science is natural and part of nature is the human ability to make shit up. There is no difference between the gullibility of the Ancient Egyptians falsely believing the sun was a god and your gullibility in your emotional desire to want your own pet deity to be real. The only difference is that yours is a religion waiting to become part of the graveyard of myth. The only difference between a religion and a myth is time.

God/s/god/deity/super natural/ entities are all human invented superstitions, including yours. It is not our baggage that you simply do not want to face that.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Eternal translates to , no bigining and no end.
Time and the universe have a bigining.

Look it up.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.

But while we are on the subject, what evidence is there for time and the universe having a beginning ? Source other than the bible please ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

In the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,
It says that Quantum mechanics does have a cause .
Would you like to explain that ?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.

Going back to the BB. From what you have said,
It seems that you believe the universe was caused
By nothing. Is this correct?
Correct me if I am wrong ?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.

Since Bob does not want to answer the question,
Perhaps you like to pick up the slack .
What is your opinion on the cause of the
B.B?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.

Since Bob does not want to answer the question, Perhaps you like to pick up the slack . What is your opinion on the cause of the B.B?

As things do not have to have causes, you will first have to establish that a cause was needed before you can ask that question.

Lesson in logic.

It is not illogical for things to happened without a cause. ONLY if you assume without evidence that things must have a cause is a thing without a cause illogical. Your assumption is your choice.

That you credit observation for a presumption is meaningless. DESPITE the bible people used to observe spontanious generation of life all the time. No one found this contradictory to Genesis even though the hand of god was not seen in a pile of shit.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Everything In the physical world has a cause.
Every effect has a cause .
Every action has a reaction.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.

Since Bob does not want to answer the question, Perhaps you like to pick up the slack . What is your opinion on the cause of the B.B?

Well, lately Bob has been on here less and less. Let me give you an analogy of your argument. Your level of inquiry equates to a child pointing out that the car goes "Vrummmmm" in an argument for green fuel impacting horse power.

Now, I will try and answer some well formulated questions if you want. I'm not going to enjoy it, but I'll give it a good shot.

My opinion on the cause of the B.B. is hardly relevant, but my best description on the cause would be !@#$KJ!@. That's the best definition anyone on this side of the Big Bang can give you. If anyone gets specific about conditions prior to, they are completely full of shit.

Further more, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox says nothing about quantum mechanics having a cause. Entanglement is a very difficult and poorly understood concept. I'm going to try and break it down and try to explain it in plain English.

Basically it goes like this. Because quantum mechanics says that any given experiment's results are unpredictable. Any one set of particles are in an unknown state until observed. Think of it like having a closed box with two balls inside. You don't know what colour the balls are until you open the box. What the paradox implies is that if you half the box without opening it, and take one half in one room, and the second in a different room. Assuming you understand the equation governing your results, for example that the balls must be blue and red, as soon as you find out the colour of one ball, the other becomes the other colour according to quantum mechanics.

Now, the paradox says, it is much more sensible to assume that the pair of particles are governed by a set of hidden variables, rather then to assume that there is faster then light communication between the particles. For example, if you had shoes instead of balls, the hidden variables would be the fact that shoes always come in left/right pairs. So one shouldn't be surprised to find a left shoe in one box and a right shoe in the other.

Enter Bell's inequality. This is where we step into edumacation (sic) territory. Suffice it to say that an experiment was designed to show that quantum mechanics is the explanation that makes sense, not the hidden variable theory.

In other words, there is some sort of unknown instantaneous communication between sets of particles.

The paradox you cited without understanding was a thought experiment designed to show that quantum mechanics is flawed because it implies FTL communication, which goes against the theory of relativity. It was also experimentally shown to be the incorrect conclusion. I'm not sure why you brought it up, or how that supports any point that you attempted to make.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

In the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, It says that Quantum mechanics does have a cause . Would you like to explain that ?

That is not what the EPR paradox is about. It is about quantum entanglement, and the problem it reveals is that it implies that if one measures the state of one of an entangled pair of particles, it will have an instantaneous effect on the measured state of the other, even if they are separated by a large distance, which goes against the ideas of Einstein's Relativity, which prohibits information being transmitted at faster than the speed of light.

Quantum Mechanics does not imply there is no causality, just that some events seem to occur in a purely random or probabilistic manner, i.e., depending on the nature of the event and the energy required, there may be no necessary or identifiable cause.

On short, one we take into account quantum effects, chaotic feedback, and situations where there are many effects contributing to affect the behaviour of a given system, the chains of cause-effect can be very complex and subtle, making it hard to apply simplistic analysis.

Since Bob does not want to answer the question, Perhaps you like to pick up the slack . What is your opinion on the cause of the B.B?

Well, lately Bob has been on here less and less. Let me give you an analogy of your argument. Your level of inquiry equates to a child pointing out that the car goes "Vrummmmm" in an argument for green fuel impacting horse power.

Now, I will try and answer some well formulated questions if you want. I'm not going to enjoy it, but I'll give it a good shot.

My opinion on the cause of the B.B. is hardly relevant, but my best description on the cause would be !@#$KJ!@. That's the best definition anyone on this side of the Big Bang can give you. If anyone gets specific about conditions prior to, they are completely full of shit.

Further more, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox says nothing about quantum mechanics having a cause. Entanglement is a very difficult and poorly understood concept. I'm going to try and break it down and try to explain it in plain English.

Basically it goes like this. Because quantum mechanics says that any given experiment's results are unpredictable. Any one set of particles are in an unknown state until observed. Think of it like having a closed box with two balls inside. You don't know what colour the balls are until you open the box. What the paradox implies is that if you half the box without opening it, and take one half in one room, and the second in a different room. Assuming you understand the equation governing your results, for example that the balls must be blue and red, as soon as you find out the colour of one ball, the other becomes the other colour according to quantum mechanics.

Now, the paradox says, it is much more sensible to assume that the pair of particles are governed by a set of hidden variables, rather then to assume that there is faster then light communication between the particles. For example, if you had shoes instead of balls, the hidden variables would be the fact that shoes always come in left/right pairs. So one shouldn't be surprised to find a left shoe in one box and a right shoe in the other.

Enter Bell's inequality. This is where we step into edumacation (sic) territory. Suffice it to say that an experiment was designed to show that quantum mechanics is the explanation that makes sense, not the hidden variable theory.

In other words, there is some sort of unknown instantaneous communication between sets of particles.

The paradox you cited without understanding was a thought experiment designed to show that quantum mechanics is flawed because it implies FTL communication, which goes against the theory of relativity. It was also experimentally shown to be the incorrect conclusion. I'm not sure why you brought it up, or how that supports any point that you attempted to make.

Not to go too far off of topic, but wasn't there some problems with this format as well that the shroedingers cat thought experiment was meant to showcase, or am I misunderstanding?

'Without beginning or end' does NOT imply 'outside of time'. At most it suggests 'unchanging', but even that is not a necessary implication.

Unchanging is outside of time. Time is always changing, think about it.
Therefore eternal or unchanging is outside of time.

You said,
Time as we know it may or may not have a beginning, that varies with the particular theory.

Not according to Einstein and Hawking .
Time and space does have a beginning.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.

You said, 'Without beginning or end' does NOT imply 'outside of time'. At most it suggests 'unchanging', but even that is not a necessary implication. Unchanging is outside of time. Time is always changing, think about it. Therefore eternal or unchanging is outside of time. You said, Time as we know it may or may not have a beginning, that varies with the particular theory. Not according to Einstein and Hawking . Time and space does have a beginning.

They may have a beginning in that we have a point that we can measure them from in this context, but if we want to talk about a possible cyclical system, IE say a series of constant big bang and big crunch cycles then time as we understand it may not have a true beginning per se, or would we only look at time for this reality, this particular round?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.

You said, Quantum Mechanics does not imply there is no causality. Finally you and I agree on something . Quantum mechanics does not violate the law of cause and effect.

Unless you are playing a stupid game on the difference between imply and infer you are simply repeating what everyone has told you is false. There is no "law" of cause and effect. There is no cause and effect in quantum mechanics.

There are fools and there are stubborn fools. You are in the latter category.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Unless you are playing a stupid game on the difference between imply and infer you are simply repeating what everyone has told you is false. There is no "law" of cause and effect. There is no cause and effect in quantum mechanics.

There are fools and there are stubborn fools. You are in the latter category.

:lol:

There are also some stubborn theists that just enjoy being deliberately obtuse. I think that might be the case here.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

Unless you are playing a stupid game on the difference between imply and infer you are simply repeating what everyone has told you is false. There is no "law" of cause and effect. There is no cause and effect in quantum mechanics.

There are fools and there are stubborn fools. You are in the latter category.

:lol:

There are also some stubborn theists that just enjoy being deliberately obtuse. I think that might be the case here.

If they want to look like idiots then call them idiots. There is no point to giving them credit for something not evidenced by their posts.

Call 'em like you see 'em not the way they might be based upon an assumption of fact not in evidence.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

There is nothing to explain and it is not a belief. Quantum mechanics fully explains all the phenomena which underlie the observable world except for gravity -- Higgs Boson discovery will likely change that as may other things. Quantum mechanics does not have causation.

The explanations are correct. There is no causation needed. Therefore there is no causation.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

You said, Quantum Mechanics does not imply there is no causality. Finally you and I agree on something . Quantum mechanics does not violate the law of cause and effect.

There is no "Law of Cause and Effect", as such, in Science.

What we have are many laws and principles which describe how the state of a system at any instant influences and/or determines the way in which the system is most likely to change in the immediate future. Quantum Mechanics describes how we cannot determine this with absolute certainty and accuracy down to the smallest detail, but only define the probabilities of various outcomes.

An important principle is that there is no requirement that a 'cause' be 'greater'' in any sense than its effect, by whatever measure you want to use.

Very often, the 'effect' can 'feed back' and change the 'cause', creating a causal loop.

In the case of the Big Bang, even if we need a 'cause', there is no logical requirement that that cause must have any of the usually assumed attributes of a God, let alone sentience or 'will'.

A satanic apologist? That's amusing. And just to clarify, you are friends with him to this day lol.

I too am friends with Satanists. Rex Church (MI6, Former COS as of 01/2012. Order of Trapezoid.

Only a few of them are actually "nice" people so you are lucky. And if you spoke with a LaVeyian/COS satanist then you guys are BOTH athiest (agnostic) so no wonder you were getting along.

Can I get a duh anybody?

LaVeyian satanists are'nt really satanists. They are like the weak atheists of the "atheist" crowd, kind of looked at as jokes.

Seitians are a little more serious and the Golden Dawn is very serious.

I probably know more about satanism then your satanic friend. But given he was a theistic satanist then he was obviously not LaVeyian.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

I too am friends with Satanists. Rex Church (MI6, Former COS as of 01/2012. Order of Trapezoid.

Only a few of them are actually "nice" people so you are lucky. And if you spoke with a LaVeyian/COS satanist then you guys are BOTH athiest (agnostic) so no wonder you were getting along.

Thanks Jean.

I plugged that into google and after taking a few lateral jumps via Kenneth Anger and Boyd Rice, ended up with the entertaining http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/ which led back to religion via Churchill:

While visiting King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, Winston was informed he could neither smoke nor drink, for religious reasons, during a banquet thrown in his honor. Winston wasn’t having any. He informed the monarch that, “My religion prescribed as an absolute sacred ritual smoking cigars and drinking alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and the intervals between them.”

Then I read the theists posts and it becomes blatantly obvious that they don't and can't understand.

Much like how you can't invent a car without first inventing the wheel, an engine, and metalworking; you can't understand quantum mechanics, gravity, time, and space without first aquiring a bare minimum of a high school level of education in the sciences.

Vastet is mostly right, but the short answer is that whatever caused the Big Bang was created by G-d. Even if it was just the Laws of Nature that resulted in the event we call "The Big Bang".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

I would not say that it is unknown . After all We have the bible that states that in the bigining God created the heavens and the earth. Pointing To a universal bigining just like what scientist and The huble Law predicted.

The bible clearly states there was light then dark then light then dark then light then dark then light; THEN god created the sun the moon the stars. Would you mind explaining where all that light came from on the first four days and where did it go to afterwards?

Sure.

Whenever an electron moves from a higher energy state, to a lower energy state, some number of photons is given off.

As matter condensed from the giant sea of "stuff", electrons and protons combined to form atomic hydrogen. Those electrons gave off photons. As atomic hydrogen combined to form molecular hydrogen, that gave off photons.

If you're interested, check out some early cosmologies and pay particular attention to "The Dark Ages".

Oh, you mean where is all that explained in the Bible!

It isn't. The Bible isn't a science text. If you want to study Science, there are schools for that. If you want to study G-d, contact your local Rabbi.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.

Vastet is mostly right, but the short answer is that whatever caused the Big Bang was created by G-d. Even if it was just the Laws of Nature that resulted in the event we call "The Big Bang".

Hey there, long time no see. How are you these days?

Much better. ProzacDeathWish probably understands that comment better than many here.

I realized that my business was doing a very effective job (heh) of isolating me from human contact, which is a very bad thing for me. It was also driving me crazy because the deals I was chasing were quite large, and had very long lead times. For example, I'm building a list of potential orders that could make last year's sales look puny, but so far no one has plonked down the money.

So, I scaled back my ambitions and took a day job. The otherwise unbearable depression went away as soon as I had regular face-to-face human contact.

I've been too busy -- having a day job =and= running a business -- to pop in here. Thank G-d the RRS servers crashed or I'd have completely forgotten all about you people. Sign from G-d? Survey says .... YES!!!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Proper names are never made possessive. The "ךְ" (possessive ending suffix letter ...) on the end of "יִשְׁעֵ" proves that it isn't the proper name "Jesus" since "Jesus" wouldn't be made possessive as a proper name. That the vowel point on the ayin is wrong doesn't help your argument either. The final nail in the bogus argument is that the exact same word is used throughout the Tanakh to mean "my salvation" or "your salvation" or something else involving "salvation".

In no instances was it means "your Jesus". Because proper names are never made possessive ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Vastet is mostly right, but the short answer is that whatever caused the Big Bang was created by G-d. Even if it was just the Laws of Nature that resulted in the event we call "The Big Bang".

Hey there, long time no see. How are you these days?

Much better. ProzacDeathWish probably understands that comment better than many here.

I realized that my business was doing a very effective job (heh) of isolating me from human contact, which is a very bad thing for me. It was also driving me crazy because the deals I was chasing were quite large, and had very long lead times. For example, I'm building a list of potential orders that could make last year's sales look puny, but so far no one has plonked down the money.

So, I scaled back my ambitions and took a day job. The otherwise unbearable depression went away as soon as I had regular face-to-face human contact.

I've been too busy -- having a day job =and= running a business -- to pop in here. Thank G-d the RRS servers crashed or I'd have completely forgotten all about you people. Sign from G-d? Survey says .... YES!!!

Glad to hear that. I've had some sort of "day job" since I was 16 so I wouldn't know any differently. I'm actually looking to start my own thing right now, aside from school and my day job. I'm writing a bunch of code for a niche market of the telecom industry in my spare time. I'm hoping it will pay off... it's sort of fun to get creative, but getting paid to get creative is even better.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

The context Imply a proper name.
Salvation is a person and not a thing or
A event.

He comes :
His reward is
With Him
His work
Before Him

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.